The Nickleblog

Oscar Snubs

2012-01-30T18:58:00.000-08:00

I'm going to keep it simple for this first post in god-knows-how-long (look at the date, intrepid readers!)

I wanted to point you in the direction of 9 alternate films deserving at least a little attention at this years Oscars. Now, don't get me wrong; I'm sure all the films nominated are extremely well put together examples of cinema in 2011. I guess only time will tell if films like The Help and The Descendants will resonate in our collective consciousness the way films in the past have done. Like, say, last year's nominees?

I know they certainly won't stick with me, save for as a reminder of all the films that missed out on the attention they deserved. The list below are those films.

1. Catfish (2010, dir. Henry Joost, Ariel Schulman)

*although technically released at the end of 2010, it's a wonderful documentary, and Australia didn't receive it until the start of this year.

2. Red State (2011, dir. Kevin Smith)

Easily the best film Smith has made since Clerks (with special exceptions made for Chasing Amy and Dogma)

3. Snowtown (2011, dir. Justin Kurzel)

Australia represent! Snowtown is a painful film to watch, but magnificently crafted. Animal Kingdom was the Australian film championed last year - where's the love for this far more powerful (and disturbing) crime thriller?

4. Drive (2011, dir. Nicolas Winding Refn)

The first controversial film on this list, I think. Mostly because I have no idea what the hell it was about.

"How does it make your list of Oscar snubs?" I hear you ask. Well, it was an intensely beautiful and beautifully intense caper with an incredible soundtrack. It was fresh and gripping to the very end, and images linger in my mind many months after I saw it. I count that as a great cinema experience.

5. Contagion (2011, dir. Steven Soderbergh)

I totally didn't expect this to be so good. It's the perfect Soderbergh vehicle - zero character development, just tension and tone.

Also - Demetri Martin FTW.

6. Attack the Block (2011, dir. Joe Cornish)

A clever throwback to the kids films of yesteryear. Even more so for redeeming a main character with such questionable morality.

7. I Saw The Devil (2011, dir. Jee-Woon Kim)

Y'all already know I thought this was a pretty great film. Don't believe me? Have at it.

8. Submarine (2010, dir. Richard Ayoade)

* another one from 2010? Really? I saw this at MIFF this year!

One of the better quirky comedies I've seen.

9. We Need to Talk About Kevin (2011, dir. Lynne Ramsay)

Everyday it's-a getting closer ...

I assured my girlfriend and mother that this would get nominated for SOMETHING (my tip was sound editing and design. Phwoar!) It's spectacular. Go and check it out.

And now, for some honourable mentions:

The Trip (2010, dir. Michael Winterbottom)

Technically a TV series from 2002. Nevertheless, when re-cut it turned out to be one of the more memorable movies of the year.

X-Men: First Class (2011, dir. Matthew Vaughn)

Props for killer music too. I believe the score has since been used in the trailer for Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (for which Gary Oldman has been nominated for Best Actor in 2012).

Shouldn't McAvoy have been nominated for his performance as Charles Xavier? He was amazing in this film. Both respectful to another thespian's take on the subject matter and able to bring incredible new dimension to the character.

Super 8 (2011, dir. JJ Abrams)

I'm such a non fan of JJ the TV director, but have generally enjoyed JJ the film director. Like Attack the Block, it's a throwback to the kids films of my youth. It's also a kids film that I fully intend to subject my own kids to. Look forward to that, Nick Jr.

All Growed Up

2011-07-21T17:53:00.000-07:00

I realised I was old last night.

My girlfriend (who is a few years younger than I) bought us tickets to go and see RISE AGAINST play at Festival Hall. We were treated to seats in the all ages, unlicensed section of venue, and you know what that means. Kids who have conned their parents into accompanying them to the concert.

"Because I'm not cool if I don't go and see Rise Against! The other kids will laugh at me!"

I'm not certain if it's just because I don't remember school yard hierarchy all that well, but from what I recall, having your parents take you to a rock concert is not going to convince your school yard chums of your coolness and imperviousness to laughter. I hope that it was incredibly awkward for them and their parents as 25 year old punk-hardcore band SICK OF IT ALL busted out this little ditty:

Sick of It All - Die Alone

Well, if it wasn't awkward for them, it was for me. Watching 40 year old men scream out to a bunch of kids the faux-emo chant of "DIE ALONE! DIE! DIE!" was cringe worthy. I'm not certain at what point of the song writing process you get to, where your thought process is just, 'hey, I'm in a band. My influences are vast and genre spanning. I think that Bob Dylan is a wonderful lyricist. He's my main inspiration for wanting to use music to convey my opinions and feelings to the wider world. Got some lyrics here. Die alone. Die. Die. Yeah, that's enough. Nothing more needed there - no more polish required. Onto the next song. Dylan would be proud.'

I've no idea if the lead singer of Sick of it All likes Bob Dylan's music. Or if he can think.

Equally awkward was when he made the kids in the mosh pit part down the middle (you've seen this trick before), then when the song started, had them run at each other like a god damned civil war re-enactment. I wonder if the irony of simulating war at a gig for a band who is loud and vocal in their opposition to the very idea of war was lost on the kids.

Speaking of anti-war, as we were, Rise Against did finally make it on stage, and were absolutely stunning when they busted out Hero of War in the acoustic breakdown that they usually do in the middle of their set.

Rise Against - Hero Of War

The end of the song saw the whole band kick back in, giving it a grand spectacle kind of feel. I was extremely moved. Other highlights included Give It All and Saviour (which was far and away the best song they played all night. Really - they should have started the proceedings off with it and then just coasted on the good vibes from that all night).

Rise Against - Saviour

Unfortunately for me, I didn't know the majority of the songs that they played, what with most of them being plucked from their latest album (and my not owning the album). So I ended up looking like dusty old Mr. Stodge, standing with his hands in his pockets, surrounded by a sea of screaming children. Okay - so I haven't painted a nice picture there. But the long and the short of is that I felt like a poseur.

I didn't want to mosh. I didn't want to scream out the lyrics. What I wanted was to be at a small venue, nursing a beer, smiling and tapping my feet to the wonderful performance in front of me. Instead, I was coerced into participating in the 'standard concert ritual'. You know how it is - the band yells out shit like "you kids having a good time?" The crowd roars. They make you do it again ad nauseam until they're satisfied you're suitably riled up. The crowd waves a pointed finger or an open palm or a devil horns in the band's direction, proving how rock they are. Some asshole takes off his sweaty shirt to reveal his sweaty self, then bumps into everyone he can. The kids in the mosh pit beat each other up.

The thing is, I used to like the ritual. I used to be the sweaty guy. But I'm done with it, and somewhere between the last time I saw Rise Against and this time, I made my peace with that. It didn't stop me from feeling old and out of place though.

NOFX - Medio-Core

I Saw I Saw The Devil

2011-07-19T19:54:00.000-07:00

I Saw The Devil (2010, dir. Jee-woon Kim)

If you've been reading the trade zines and blogs recently, you'd likely have heard that Spike Lee is helming a remake of fiercely original Korean thriller OLDBOY, set to star Will Smith. This sounds like a terrible idea - firstly, because in 2003 when the film first came out, the twist was harder to predict. Since its release, every thriller and it's dog has tried to mind fuck you in the same way. So the thrill part of thriller is lost, being that you'll pick the resolve of the film earlier than half way through. Secondly, because the film relies very heavily on eastern sensibilities and ideas of family. Thirdly, because they're putting Will Smith in it.

Oldboy (2003, dir. Chan-wook Park)

You may have noticed, if you've been watching the trailers, that the lead actor is the same in both films. You've just been segued.

I SAW THE DEVIL is for all intents and purposes, a pretty basic revenge plot. A serial killer has murdered the wife of our police officer protagonist, who then sets off after our antagonist. The twist here is that our protagonist is a purveyor of old school justice, and believes in an eye for an eye. He comes to understand that what he seeks in way of revenge is not for the villain to repent, or to fear his own death, or to be hurt physically - what he wants is for the villain to feel exactly what he has felt. And he's going to need to go to some pretty dark places to achieve that.

It strikes me that the film probably didn't cost a whole heap to produce, and there are some cheesy-ish moments in it - slow motion shots of characters crying with a sweeping score underneath. Voice overs from the protagonist waxing poetic on his devastating loss. But it's the inclusion of these scenes that really had me hooked. As a film maker, I don't think it can be denied that Jee-woon Kim has a strong and distinctive style. But it deserves mentioning that he's also incredibly bold, following his story as it leads him (and us) through graphic violence, through melodrama and onwards.

The plot of the film is actually quite basic when stacked up against other films of it's genre, and it's certainly an achievable film in terms of scope and story for an Australian film maker to attempt. (In fact, whilst watching it, my mate James Andre from over at milkshadow indicated it reminded him of Aussie crime caper THE HORSEMAN). What sets it apart from what I could see an Australian doing, and what is evidently already being practised by Korean film makers, is the courage to take a basic story and build into it engaging characters, mind blowing set pieces and a thrilling narrative style.

I hope that we can grow some balls, figuratively speaking, sometime soon.

The Horseman (2008, dir. Steven Kastrissios)

In Tyler We Trust

2011-07-18T23:25:00.000-07:00

Is FIGHT CLUB a retelling of the Jesus story, told from the point of view of a schizophrenic Judas?

(spoilers ahead)

Fight Club (1999, dir. David Fincher)

Recently I've been listening to Andrew Lloyd Webber's JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR. Out of no where, I've really grown interested in the intention and genesis of this story. It reminds me of a 70s rock version of COHEED AND CAMBRIA. (I was going to say 'less campy' ... but who are we kidding?)

Heaven on their Minds (1970, Murray Head)

The Willing Well III - Apollo II - The Telling Truth (2005, Coheed and Cambria)

So the plot basically revolves around the tragic figure of Judas in the Jesus mythology. Jesus' right hand man, Judas was involved in spreading the word of Jesus. However, at the beginning of the story, word about Jesus' supposed divinity has gotten out, and Judas is worried for he and his friend's life, what with the occupation of the Romans still a massive threat.

The more followers they gain, the more of a perceived threat they become. Jesus begins to grow apart from him - he starts to buy into his own bullshit - until Judas realises the only way to put a stop to Jesus' danger to the status quo is to betray him to the Romans. We all know the rest of the story - Pontius Pilate, under orders from King Herrod, crucifies Jesus as an example, thereby making a martyr of Jesus for his cause.

What I'm posing is this - the story plays out along remarkably similar lines as David Fincher's 1999 filmic masterpiece FIGHT CLUB. In it, we are introduced to the narrator, who has created an alter ego, Tyler Durden, who helps he and those like him free themselves from the bondage of the status quo, allegorical of the way that Judas helps to create "Jesus Christ" as he is known. (Before that, of course, Jesus was simply the son of a carpenter).

However, as things seem to be going their best, Tyler Durden takes the following of spiritually thirsty followers and converts them into a militaristic operation. This concerns the narrator (and Judas) greatly. From there, the story follows the narrator's attempts to betray and defeat Tyler Durden to preserve the safety of the status quo. Ultimately, however, he is too late to stop everything that he has put into motion, and although he kills Tyler (who is well and truly already a martyr for his cause), the anarchistic future he envisioned has started to emerge. (Again - similar to how Christianity had already taken hold by the time of Jesus' death, and would eventually overthrow the Romans and their faith).

Certainly food for thought, at the least.

Where Is My Mind? (1988, The Pixies)

Robots In Disguise

2011-06-29T18:10:00.000-07:00

A defence (apparently) for Michael Bay's atrocious films.

Transformers: The Movie (1986, dir. Nelson Shin)

Transformers (2007, dir. Michael Bay)

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009, dir. Michael Bay)

Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011, dir. Michael Bay)

Transformers - as a movie franchise - is difficult to define.

The original television series began as 30 minute long toy commercials, so to suggest that even in the beginning there was a shred of creative integrity is far fetched.

The toys themselves, and the mythos created to contextualize them, have since come to damn near define an entire generation (of westerners, presumably. Giant robots were like the three stooges to kids in Asia). As a result, since childhood we've granted these overly long ads a free ride in our hearts - justifying their blatant consumerism first by citing our indiscrimination as children, and then because we've developed so many fond memories of playing with the products that the series shelled.

Michael Bay has, in the last decade, created three new feature instalments in the franchise. The first worked fine as a piece of popcorn entertainment. It delivered on the subject matter to audience 'connection', by utilising a main character who is drawn into a vast and globe spanning conflict because his car turns out to be an alien robot. Sam Witwicky (Shia Labeouf) becomes the audience's avatar in the picture, because everyone can identify with the feeling of freedom generated by purchasing your first car, but then to discover that car you now love so much is actually the first Transformer toy you were ever handed as a child, well that just touches the little nostalgia button deep inside, and a smile you can't control is plastered on your face. The military sub plot was long winded and ultimately superfluous, but at the end of the day the film had already achieved all it needed to achieve for an audience member to sit in the dark for two (and a half?) hours contentedly. The film had made a personal, emotional connection. That's all we ask.

The second (and I must presume third - because I haven't seen it) instalment failed to do even that. It became bogged down in the indecipherable (but admittedly never-less-than-photo-realistic) visuals, the bangs, the explosions, the gratuitous butt shots.

The question I pose now, and the reason why I find this franchise so difficult to define, is this:

Does THE TRANSFORMERS need to have an emotional connection with the audience? Is this something worth criticizing in what is self evidently a large commercial for cars and toys? Given the ridiculous nature of the feature concept, should one try to apply a fair critical framework to these films? If Transformers is now, and always was, less about story and characters and plotting than it was about selling toys, is it fair to analyse the films through story and character and plot?

I don't think that any film gets out of being bad because of its subject matter and intended purpose. And I genuinely feel that no matter how far fetched the plot, the audience requires an emotional anchor point otherwise the whole thing is meaningless drivel. But we're talking about something that never did, and arguably deserves not to, have any real emotional or creative merit. Art film can get away with being totally devoid of plot. Why not commercial film too?

World's Greatest Film Critic

2011-06-19T23:37:00.000-07:00

If you haven't heard of Armond White, you need to do some research. All of his reviews are just wonderful. Read them here.

Super 8

2011-06-13T23:48:00.000-07:00

It's unfortunate that there is a critical backlash regarding this film from the very people I feel should be getting behind it.

This review (if you can call it that) is essentially a response to Dustin Rowles' review over at Pajiba.

Let me start off, right off the bat, with saying that I agree that the film is pretty simple. And there are certainly films that better explore a broken home by way of a deceased parent. I couldn't tell you which ones, because honestly, I'm more inclined to spend $20 on a film about kids on bicycles encountering forces beyond their imagination. So anything even close to depth in JJ's handling of the emotional core of the film works just fine for me.

The film chronicles a group of kids that set out to make a movie, but in the process get swept up in a 'government vs. alien' adventure, over which they have very little control. Which is surely the point - like the best of Spielberg's work - the third act allows the more grandiose events to fade a little into the background, and the important thing is to resolve the emotional arcs. Which SUPER 8 certainly does - even if it's a little unsophisticated in going about it.

The basic idea of the film, and one I relate to as a writer myself, is that holding on to something you've lost will eventually damage you more than the loss itself will do.

**SPOILERS**

My friend Dan suggested that a better ending for the film would have been to have Joe (Joel Courtney) remain in possession of the 'final piece' of the alien's space craft until the end of the film, which would certainly have made him more integral to the resolve of the action / adventure plot. Likewise, keeping Nelec (Noah Emmerich) alive longer would have provided an antagonist to Joe and his father (Kyle Chandler) helping the alien escape in the end.

And whilst I would have been perfectly happy with that ending, I feel like the ending in the film knows what it is and what it wants to be, and that JJ is likely content with it. Because it effectively achieves both of these things; it wraps up the emotional journey of the film in a confrontation between Joe and the alien, effectively giving the alien the emotional strength to finally leave, and it wraps up the Joe / father plot simply by reuniting them. Sure, the other proposed ending sounds like fun, but it's unnecessary.

There is no greater relationship between Joe and the alien, because as much as we'd love for this film to be more E.T., less CLOVERFIELD, it's NOT E.T. It was never going to be. It delivers on its promise from the trailer (below). It's an original, fun family adventure film that I think has the chops to stand alongside the rest of the Amblin family - even if it is the slightly less clever second cousin.

Yeah, you're right though ... way too much lens flare.

Super 8 (2011, dir. JJ Abrams)

If You Want To Sing Out, Sing Out

2011-05-10T21:00:00.001-07:00

I was just reading an article over on FILM SCHOOL REJECTS called "8 Movies My Past Girlfriends Forced Me to Watch That Made Me Who I Am Today"and thought - that scenario is one I can totally empathise with. So I thought I'd try the same thing, although my memory is pretty rubbish, and it means that there are only a handful that I can remember. Also - I've not restricted it to girlfriends, but rather any film that someone convinced me to watch (that I didn't want to see) that ended up changing my outlook on film. Let's begin.

16 BLOCKS

16 Blocks (2006, dir. Richard Donner)

My sister has always had a thing for Bruce Willis. Even when she was young and it was kind of weird. So when this film crept into theatres (seriously crept - there was no buzz behind it in Australia) and we were looking for an activity we could do together, she suggested this film. (Because I'm into film and she's into Bruce Willis - still). I can take or leave him as an actor - he's usually good fun to watch but not much more than that - and I can say the same of the crime genre.

It was somewhere round the middle of the film - jaded cop turned hungover anti-hero Bruce Willis is being pursued on the street - that I became aware of the low budget nature of this production. You could see people in the background of the shot watching the shoot go on. This totally worked for me; I loved the idea that someone could do a compelling crime film, with genuine heart and an unexpectedly impressive performance from Mos Def, on a shoe string. I was hooked, and the film played out like a well written but underfunded action film could be expected to. Impressed, I was eager to find out who directed this little gem. Then Richard Donner's name appeared on the screen, and it felt like the universe was telling me "you've not been deceived. There was a master at work here." Let's face it, they're not handing him SUPERMAN or THE GOONIES any more, but this guy can still spin a yarn.

Superman (1978, dir. Richard Donner)

The Goonies (1985, dir. Richard Donner)

TOGETHER

My best friend had already shown me Lukas Moodysson's 1998 masterpiece SHOW ME LOVE (FUCKING AMAL) - the film that outgrossed TITANIC in Sweden that year, so it's strange that even though he had lent me the DVD of TOGETHER it took him coming over, sitting me down, handing me a beer and forcing me to watch the TV until I finally got around to watching it.

Together (2000, dir. Lukas Moodysson)

The film is warm and honest, incredibly engaging. One moment; when a couple of here-to-fore heterosexual characters are caught in a nearly-bi encounter, I'd defy you to not be wrapped up in the tension building, and the incredible sense of elation at the resolve. While this doesn't surpass SHOW ME LOVE in my eyes, it's certainly a strong contender. And it's certainly something that I wouldn't have watched on my own.

As a side note - SHOW ME LOVE perfectly captures the high school experience. You should definitely see it if you've not.

Show Me Love (1998, dir. Lukas Moodysson)

Titanic (1998, dir. James Cameron)

HAROLD & MAUDE

Harold & Maude (1971, dir. Hal Ashby)

I don't really know Hal Ashby. IMDB tells me I haven't seen any of his other films. Which I should probably get around to considering how much I enjoyed Harold & Maude. Even if you can't stand Cat Stevens - although I never want to meet you if that is the case - the story of true love between an elderly woman and a suicidal teenager at first might seem inaccessible, but the truth of the matter is the journey of discovery towards self worth, and self love, is incredibly moving and honest.

This was another film Caleb (best friend, as per previous film) sat me down to watch. He really knows what he's talking about, huh?

LUCKY NUMBER SLEVIN

Lucky Number Slevin (2006, dir. Paul McGuigan)

A girlfriend and her mates convinced me to see this. They showed me the poster. How was I supposed to resist the charms of Morgan Freeman, Stanley Tucci, Ben Kingsley, there's Bruce Willis again, Lucy Liu? But resist them I should have. This was back before Ben Kingsley appeared in a Uwe Boll film, by the way, but even then I should have known something was up.

I can't accurately describe how much I loathed this film at the time, because 5 years have passed since I saw it, and I can't really remember every detail because I've vowed not to see it again. Let me assure you that it is a thoroughly horrendous, Tarantino-lite mistake of a film. It is a crime caper that spends screen time explaining the intricate crime that has just been committed, without ever showing you that crime, but then because the characters have been talking we missed the next most interesting thing to happen, so in the next scene they have to sit around talking about what we've just missed. It is the textbook for what not to do when writing a screenplay. It tells, it doesn't show, and you need to be a far superior filmmaker than the fools involved with this celluloid joke to break that cardinal rule.

THE MIST

The Mist (2007, dir. Frank Darabont)

Let's end it on a high note. The same girlfriend as above dragged me along to this. She was one of the people who supported the SAW and FINAL DESTINATION franchises with enthusiasm.

Well, I was shocked. I knew that I was on board during an intense moment in the second half of the film, when a crazy religious nut (Marcia Gay Harden) convinces the mob stuck inside the supermarket location of the film to brutally stab and murder a young soldier - the scene ended, and I realised my hands were hurting. Because I was clenching them so hard. I was literally on the edge of my seat. I had ceased to be in a movie theatre for that brief period of time and found myself lost in the world of the film.

At its heart, the skin of a Stephen King monster movie gives way to the classic themes of science versus religion - staple of all great science fiction and horror movies since the dawn of time. It's this strong anchoring in genre convention, supported by wonderful performances from otherwise B-movie actors, that made this an unexpected favourite.

Webcomix

2011-05-05T01:05:00.000-07:00

Questionable Content

(I may be a little bit in love with Hannelore from QC).

Octopus Pie

Girls With Slingshots

May The Forth Be With You

2011-05-03T19:46:00.000-07:00

(I am posting this May 4th 2011, despite what blogger.com has to say about it).

Happy Star Wars Day everyone!

The subject of STAR WARS is a delicate one for me. I confess to being a life long fan, in that nothing can shake my affection for the original trilogy and the countless hours of enjoyment they have provided. But as a franchise it is also the cause of my greatest heartbreak.

As a child, the original trilogy (on dubbed VHS tape, of course) represented something good and pure. A story about people overcoming their own flaws and limitations and embarking on galaxy spanning adventures and performing deeds miles beyond the bounds of physical possibility. I heard all through my childhood (from my parents who, I only recently realised, were massive nerds like myself in their mid twenties) about the spectacle of witnessing the STAR WARS trilogy on the big screen.

I was okay with the thought that this would never happen. There were doors I was closing in my own small realm of possibilities, even at that age.

But to hear they were re-releasing the STAR WARS trilogy at the cinema? Wow. Not only that - they were going to be making more? I couldn't contain my excitement. I was one of those kids that was convinced the film was pure genius long before I saw it. And eventually had to back peddle not only on what I had told the other kids at school, but on what I had told myself. In point of fact, my story was very similar to that of Tony Pacitti, who wrote a whole book recounting these experiences.

Remember how amazing this was going to be?

The Phantom Menace (1999, dir. George Lucas)

Well it turns out that the marketing team behind the newest STAR WARS films are the real miracle workers. I maintain that letting someone helm a huge film franchise two decades after the last thing they directed is probably going to turn out terribly any way that you spin it, but again, someone else has made this same criticism better than I. Enter Mr. Plinkett.

The Phantom Menace Review (2009, dir. Plinkett Reviews)

More fun than the entire prequel trilogy right there.

And ultimately, that's what I find with the STAR WARS saga. Both equal amounts of praise and criticism have been heaped upon this series of films (and books and toys and ...) that it really becomes a moot point to try to take it apart any further.

So let's just remember the good, before the dark times. Before the empire.

Star Wars (1977, dir. George Lucas)

17/05

I'm starting to wonder at the enormity of a society wide case of media disappointment as evidenced by the STAR WARS prequels. Check out another fan's take on it here.

All the world's a stage.

2011-05-01T01:10:00.000-07:00

I've been researching Parkour - the sport / discipline that focuses on economy of and liberation through movement. At some point, I'm hoping to segue what knowledge I gain of this extreme sport into a feature film script, but I thought I'd share a few of the key ideas that are kicking around inside my head since watching Mike Christie's documentary JUMP LONDON (check out the Bear Grylls cameo towards the end!).

Jump London (2003, dir. Mike Christie)

Casino Royale (2006, dir. Martin Campbell)

You've probably seen Parkour or 'free running' in a number of TV shows or movies (Sebastien Foucan - one of the sports earliest and most prominent practitioners - actually features in a thrilling chase scene in Martin Campbell's James Bond film CASINO ROYALE - man that clip was hard to find).

Basically, the idea of free running is to clear all obstacles in your path - to find the shortest and most energetically economical route from point a to point b. There's also a surprising number of interesting world views associated with the sport. For instance, the roof of a building is rarely designed as a functional element. Free runners, on the other hand, make use of ALL parts of a building, the roof especially. It's like people who eat an apple, core and all. There's something of a conservationist nature to free running. Of course, you could always view it as a corruption of the original purpose of the buildings and obstacles that the athletes use.

Parkour is about seeing cities not as cages that contain us, but as playgrounds designed to entertain and free us. It's little wonder then that the concept for Parkour originally came from the way Sebastian and his friends would climb on top of small pillars in the park, or balance along the edges of a garden.

The Angry Chicken TVC (2002, Wieden & Kennedy Advertising)

Toyota Scion TVC (2006, Ori Agency 02 Creative Solutions)

Adrien Brody Adrien Brody Adrien Brody Adrien Brody Adrien Brody Adrien Brody

2011-04-29T00:38:00.000-07:00

It's been a shitty week.

And when you've had a shitty week, there is only one cure.

Brodyquest (2010, dir. Neil Cicierega)

Paul

2011-04-26T18:44:00.001-07:00

Paul (2011, dir. Greg Mottola)

PAUL was disappointing. Not because it was terrible, but because it was just mediocre. The writers, Nick Frost and Simon Pegg, have penned some of the most satisfying cinema excursions in the last decade. This is not the case with PAUL.

Shaun of the Dead (2004, dir. Edgar Wright)

Hot Fuzz (2007, dir. Edgar Wright)

Instead, the script feels like it was rushed out, with little or no time spent developing characters or the events which would come into play, particularly in the latter part of the movie. (The more twists the writers include, the more holes that open up in the fabric of the story). Where there should be jokes, they have inserted references to other movies. (Not even necessarily sci-fi films; there is a character called Lorenzo Zoil for no other reason that when said in full, it sounds like the title of LORENZO'S OIL).

The idea of replacing comedy with a quick recall to another movie hurts, it's so shallow. Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer are welcome to a monopoly on it, as far as I'm concerned. I assume it would work if the reference is obscure; recognition of which instantly puts you in an elite little club with the writers over your shared film geekery. But when you have Agent Zoil shooting a radio and stating 'Ah, it was a boring conversation anyway', you've just made a reference to the single most profitable film franchise of all time, and there's a good chance that there isn't a whole lot of elitism to be gleaned from engaging with that reference.

Star Wars (1977, dir. George Lucas)

The plot follows two nerds as they road trip across America. They encounter the titular alien, who requests their help returning home. Along the way they are pursued by one effective and two bumbling FBI agents (including the aforementioned Zoil and one and a half of the cops from Greg Mottola's superior SUPERBAD), a couple of homophobic rednecks and a devout Christian father trying to rescue his kidnapped daughter. I was going to make a point about how that doesn't sound very interesting, but it sounds like an incredibly interesting story. I'm sorry to tell you that it's not.

Superbad (2007, dir. Greg Mottola)

The Return of the King

2011-04-14T18:09:00.000-07:00

And by "king" I mean the franchise, not necessarily Peter Jackson himself. Because leading up to THE LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy, he was always improving as a storyteller and as a film maker, slowly garnering a cult following. But; and I say this having watched and enjoyed many of his films multiple times, he kind of dropped the ball on KING KONG and THE LOVELY BONES. That's not to say they're not wonderful films; they just rely too heavily on the good will audiences sent his way after the RINGS films came out. There are moments in THE LOVELY BONES that should have been heartbreaking, but the characters were too hastily developed and the sentimentality poured on a little to thick for it to really strike a chord.

Arriving at work this morning, however, I viewed the following video with tremendous excitement.

The Hobbit (2012, dir. Peter Jackson)

I'm geeking out in a big way.

I know I've told people that my interest in THE LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy is primarily academic; I honestly believe that the quality of storytelling and film making prowess displayed on the screen during all three films is second to none, and I also believe that no one will ever enter production on such a grand scale. (Knowingly spending over a decade telling the same story, living with the same giant family). These things awe me as a young film maker.

However, they're also responsible for some of the best times I've ever spent in a theatre. They may well be the last series of 'event' films that I really looked forward to and got excited over.

To know that there are more of these films on the way; with predominantly the same creative team in place? Well ... that just makes my day. It makes my week.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001, dir. Peter Jackson)

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003, dir. Peter Jackson)

Annie Lennox - Into The West (2003)

Can you believe it's been a decade since the first LORD OF THE RINGS movie hit screens? I saw that shit when I was on exchange in Germany during high school!

Here's hoping to see the same quality in THE HOBBIT, even if they're splitting it in two movies. And are shooting it in 3D. Dammit, PJ, you better not fuck this up.

The Horror

2011-04-10T20:08:00.000-07:00

I'm producing a short horror film, written and directed by Caleb McKenney, called SLASH - one third of which was shot this weekend. We were nearly washed out at our location shoot in Eldorado, Victoria, but thanks to seem quick and creative thinking from Caleb, the DP David Williams, and our gaffer Peter Ryan, the shoot was completed to everyone's satisfaction.

I spent Sunday recovering on the couch in front of the television. I've only got my blu rays with me at the moment, because I'm house sitting at my parents place, so moving my entire collection with me would be logistically unsound. My choices are limited, more-so by the fact that I appear to have purchased mostly horror films recently. And the reason that's strange is that I don't know a whole hell of a lot about the horror genre.

The follow post takes a look at horror films I like, and how they went on to influence (or were influenced by) other films in the same genre.

Let The Right One In (2008, dir. Tomas Alfredson)

Let Me In (2010, dir. Matt Reeves)

1. The Original and the Remake:

LET THE RIGHT ONE IN is the vampire story. Since the literary invention of creatures who drain the life force of others, to my knowledge no one has tackled the theme with so much care and consideration as is shown in this film. It is the story of Osker and his friendship with Eli; a young 'girl' who moves in next door to him. Osker is the victim of bullying at school; and not the sort of bullying you see in most movies. Real bullying. The kind that scars you psychologically. And scarred Osker is. Eli pushes him to fight back; her strangeness validates his own. The film ends with one of the greatest scenes I've ever seen. *SPOILER* At first, it appears hopeful. Osker and Eli escape the restrictive little town and the persecution of it's inhabitants. Then the credits roll, and the implications of the entire story sink in. You realise that Osker has become Eli's greatest victim; but unlike her other victims who are drained and killed relatively quickly, Osker's life will be sucked from him over the course of the rest of his life. It is an absolutely stunning piece of film making.

It's possible that LET ME IN is of a similar calibre, but I was unable to watch it without constantly comparing it to it's predecessor. As a result, all I could muster for the film was 'what is the point'? It tried so valiantly to be the original version that it never carves out an identity for itself. I have no idea if the film can actually stand on it's own two feet.

Let me use the following original and remake to segue into section 2.

Dawn of the Dead (1978, dir. George A. Romero)

Dawn of the Dead (2004, dir. Zack Snyder)

2. The Original and the Spiritual Successor

Another instance of America wanting to ride on the coat tails of excellent film making is the case of SHAUN OF THE DEAD and ZOMBIELAND. SHAUN is an extremely well crafted comedy about a man in a state of arrested development trying desperately to repair his damaged relationship with his girlfriend and make peace with his step father. Except, that's when the zombie apocalypse sets in.

ZOMBIELAND on the other hand is a less well crafted comedy about a geeky college student who is searching for a family when his own is destroyed in a similar (but not identical) zombie apocalypse. The key difference here is the respect Edgar Wright shows to the source material. If you were ever to make a zombie film, there are certain rules that you cannot break. Or, at least, that you break at your own peril.

Things like destroying the brain of a zombie. This is kind of a must in a zombie film (provided we're talking about undead and not a rage-virus type scenario). Shaun of the dead succeeds because it takes the conventions of the zombie film and plays into them. ZOMBIELAND teeters on the fringe because sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn't. Tallahassee caught in a cage towards the end of the film, for instance, does not have the ammunition to kill the number of zombies he does, much less the time and deliberation needed to ensure each of those shots is a head shot. Yet he miraculously survives. They're small nitpicks, but they're what keeps a good movie like ZOMBIELAND from really standing up to its predecessor.

ND: Zombieland does offer us a 'virus' like explanation, but its zombies act too much like Romero zombies for that to be a solid explanation for inconsistencies (and, as the cracked video below explains, there really is only one type of zombie).

Shaun of the Dead (2004, dir. Edgar Wright)

Zombieland (2009, dir. Ruben Fleischer)

Which Apocalypse Would Be The Most Fun? (2010, created by Jack O'Brien & Dan O'Brien)

3. The Master and the Apprentice

This post is getting long winded. Let me be brief.

I feel that THE FLY (itself a remake) is one of the few perfect pieces of horror film making. The story uses genre conventions to tell the heartbreaking tale of a man destroyed by his obsession. It never alienates us from the main character, even as he transforms into something totally inhuman. It is also completely terrifying.

The Fly (1986, dir. David Cronenberg)

Splice (2009, dir. Vincenzo Natali)

SPLICE uses genre conventions to a similar effect, but ends up with a slightly more B-Movie feel, due I think to the director's personal preference for melodrama over realism in performance. It makes heavy reference to Mary Shelley's FRANKESTEIN, and also chronicles the effects of obsession, this time as it relates to a relationship, when a bizarre and unknown element is introduced. Uses gore to the same effect as Cronenberg.

4. Getting It Right, The Getting It Oh So Wrong

The Descent (2005, dir. Neil Marshall)

Doomsday (2008, dir. Neil Marshall)

Centurion (2010, dir. Neil Marshall)

Neil Marshall got his start in horror with DOG SOLDIERS, a superb little werewolf flick, then moved onto THE DESCENT, which for me knocked THE EXORCIST off its perch as 'scariest movie of all time'. It is a genre bending piece of work that begins by exploring the barely covered emotional wounds that exist amongst a group of friends. But these friends, they like speluncking. So now we're underground, and we're dealing the the claustrophobia of the caves as the collapse around us, and the lights go out. Only now we learn - there's something in the dark.

You never quite know where you're headed in this film and as a result you're very ready to believe that these characters might not make it through at all. (DO NOT bother with the sequel to this film. It is terrible).

Marshall tried to take this whole 'change genres as the film changes acts' formula up a notch with DOOMSDAY, but it just gets jumbled and looses itself. It doesn't stick to its own rules. I threw CENTURION in there to show you how far someone can fall.

The Exorcist (1973, dir. William Friedkin)

5. Some Other Shit ... That Was Awesome

Drag Me To Hell (2009, dir. Sam Raimi)

The Mist (2007, dir. Frank Darabont)

Battle: Los Angeles

2011-04-05T01:28:00.001-07:00

I caught a screening of BATTLE: LOS ANGELES over the weekend. Bitterly disappointed to discover it was not in fact this film:

Battle of Los Angeles (2011, dir. Mark Atkins)

Holy shit - was that Kel from KENAN & KEL? Now I'm really upset about which film I ended up seeing.

Battle: Los Angeles plots the lead up to an alien invasion / colonisation of planet Earth. It is revealed that the aliens have come in order to take control of the planet's water supplies (which they use to fuel their ships and bodies) in a thinly veiled metaphor for the American invasion of Iraq for oil. We are, in fact, treated to a lovely little flip of character types as an heroic American soldier suicide-bombs the hell out of some advancing aliens in order to save his retreating unit.

A more thorough look at this kind of reading of the film can be found here written by the great contrarian, Armond White. I love that guy.

I saw a couple of major flaws. The first is that typically, when I go to see a movie like this, I want to see the aliens. I paid my ticket. They better be cool. But this film takes more of a CLOVERFIELD route, in that it is a grunt's-eye-view of the battle, and as a result we don't get to see all that much of the aliens or their technology. The reason this worked in CLOVERFIELD is that our protaganists are average-joe-citizens, actively trying to avoid the conflict around them. But the soldiers in BATTLE: LOS ANGELES are meant to engage these creatures. That's there job, their reason for existing, and the reason there seems to be a film crew following them around. I get the impression that the producers saw what a success DISTRICT 9 was and wanted to go the shakey-cam, realistic look, but didn't think about the fact that DISTRICT 9 didn't pull any punches in showing us everything we really wanted to see. That film metered the thrills out perfectly.

Cloverfield (2008, dir. Matt Reeves)

District 9 (2009, dir. Neill Blomkampf)

The film also made the fatal flaw of including far too many characters, which results in the runtime being excessively bloated, and the crew-cut-dunderheads all look the same, which makes it impossible to connect with them. They're beset with the usual problems of soldiers stuck in an alien invasion - this one is getting married. This one lost a brother in combat. This one is a redneck virgin. This one was in TRUEBLOOD. You know. The same conflicts you always see.

Not certain if the strategic importance taking LA was ever covered, but even if it is, in the end it doesn't matter. Once you get hours into the film and don't really care if the heroes live or die (if you're wondering, 'die' was the outcome I was holding out hope for), it's kind of pointless continuing on. Nothing new is gained. There is no story explored here not done a million times before. There are bad lines and plot holes. Aaron Echkart deserves better than this. And so do we.

Plus, the same ending was handled better in the film below. Suck on this-a one time!

In The Army Now (1994, dir. Daniel Petrie Jr.)

Griff The Invisible

2011-03-29T16:38:00.000-07:00

Griff The Invisible (2011, dir. Leon Ford) is the story of faux-autistic Griff (Ryan Kwanten) finding love and acceptance with Melody (Maeve Dermody).

I had written three paragraphs here attacking the film for what I consider a thin portrayal of a character choosing to put on a super hero costume and fighting crime in his local neighbourhood, but ultimately, it's not worth the time and effort. There are references galore in Griff to the old BATMAN serials (the red phone to the commissioner, the pole in his pantry that leads to the street and seems to outfit him in his suit - even a quick nod to THE DARK KNIGHT with his wall of surveillance computers). But the problem with that is that during his fantasy sequences where he's kicking purse-snatching ass, he doesn't adhere to the rules of crime fighting that he would have learned from any of the masked protectors he evidently idolises. He imagines snapping the necks of the crims - and any self respecting comic book fan would know that the good guys don't KILL the bad guys. Unless you're THE PUNISHER.

Let's get back on track.

Griff's brother Tim (Patrick Brammal) has moved to Sydney to help support Griff, who suffers from social anxiety and an over active imagination. Tim's new girlfriend (with whom he goes on 3 dates - 2 of which are dinner at her parents place. It's really that kind of script, where even the 'normal' characters don't live in 'reality') is Melody, an 'experimentalist' who 'tests theories' that she can pass through walls if the spaces between the particles in her body and the spaces between the particles in the wall line up at exactly the right points.

Assuming that the particles in a wall and in your body are constantly rearranging their place in your body and distance from one another, obviously. Oh well, don't look too far into it because *SPOILER* it works and she passes through a solid door towards the end of the film.

Melody meets Griff, breaks it off with Tim, and the two of them find in each other an extremely dangerous and enabling partner. They play into each other's fantasies, and move ever more out of touch with reality. This is portrayed as a good thing. The point of the film is to find happiness, even if it means a total disconnect from the real world. I can't help but think that's the kind of weak explanation a heroine addict would use to defend their habit.

If you're looking for a good version of the-mild-mannered-guy-turns-superhero, as I've mentioned before, check out SPECIAL (2006, dir. Hal Haberman and Jeremy Passmore). If you're looking for a good version of the socially-awkward-loner-out-of-touch-with-reality, check out LARS AND THE REAL GIRL (2007, dir. Craig Gillespie). Unfortunately, there's just not a whole lot recommend about Griff.

Lars and the Real Girl (2007, dir. Craig Gillespie)

The tragedy of the whole affair is that Leon Ford will now either be poached by some American talent agency and jump ship, or never be able to get the cash together to make a second film. So we lose another talented young film maker. Your first feature is allowed to be less than perfect, you've got to get that out of your system before the genius comes out. And I hope some day it does.

SIDE NOTE

My girlfriend mentioned to me the other day that she read in a review of Catherine Hardwicke's RED RIDING HOOD that the film existed and could be criticized in a 'post-twilight' era. I agreed that it was sickening to think that we've moved from post-feminism to post-teen-angst, where all the inequalities people once fought against regarding women have been re-packaged and are being sold to the sons and daughters of those same people.

I'll be honest - I don't see an end anytime soon. Not while there's money to be made.

There are some interesting voices weighing in on this issue though. Angie Han, for instance, in an article on Slash Film regarding the bullshit female empowerment message spun by the marketing department behind Zack Snyder's SUCKER PUNCH. (Or the review below from RED LETTER MEDIA which covers similar ground). Or Jennifer Siebel Newsom in her documentary feature:

Miss Representation (2011, dir. Jennifer Siebel Newsom)

Half in the Bag: Sucker Punch (2011, dir. Red Letter Media)

Peace.

Man Crush Monday - Donald Glover

2011-03-27T23:24:00.000-07:00

I worry that people around me are getting sick of hearing about a certain someone in my life. My girlfriend included. In fact, it seems that there is no aspect of my current cultural intake that is not somehow connected with this one guy. I'm speaking of course about Donald Glover. 'Who dat?' you ask, unknowingly reminding me of my visit to New Orleans last year. Dat, my accidental nostalgia generator, is a multi-talented actor, writer, stand up comic (stand up guy, what what!), musician and MC.

Donald started with Derrick Comedy, and went on to co-write and star in a sweet natured feature film which stormed SXSW a few years ago. The film, titled MYSTERY TEAM, is still not available in Australia, but I picked up a copy while I was in the states last year. Also part of that trip? A stop over in New Orleans. (See - it's all a tightly woven tapestry).

Girls Are Not To Be Trusted (2006, dir. Dan Eckman)

New Bike (2007, dir. Dan Eckman)

Mystery Team (2008, dir. Dan Eckman)

At the same time, Donald was writing for 30 ROCK; for which he won an Emmy on the show's third season. He was also fashioning two alternate persona; one as the rapper Childish Gambino, the other an MC known as DJ (seriously, look it up). He uses the latter persona to remix other artists.

30 Rock, episode "Jack-Tor" (2006, dir. Don Scardino)

Childish Gambino - The Stand (2009, dir Dan Eckman)

MC DJ - Chitown (2010, dir. kwamekamikaze2)

He's now garnering a huge following; he stars as Troy on COMMUNITY, and for a brief while, he was rumoured to be taking on the role of Spiderman (which would have been fucking awesome - but it didn't come to pass. Can you imagine if they were then able to get Danny Glover for Uncle Ben? No way he'd be too old for THAT shit.)

Community, episode "Modern Warfare" (2010, dir. Justin Lin)

So why the obsession with Donald Glover? I respect the man's talents immensely; but I think beyond that he is the living proof of what it is I have strived towards my whole life. If you find the confidence in your voice and vision, it can carry you to all sorts of dizzying heights. His example has renewed my own sense of purpose. I want to write. I want to direct. I want to act. I admit; I even feel like spitting a rhyme every now and again. If saying things like that didn't make me sound like such a white boy. Which it does. So I won't.

He IS a role model for a generation raised on television, and for whom being meta and post modernity simply form the fabric of communication. At the very least, he's funny as hell and promises to be entertaining, no matter what he's involved in.

Childish Gambino - Freaks and Geeks (2011, dir. Dan Eckman)

Peace.

Best of Youtube - March 2011

2011-03-19T08:37:00.000-07:00

Very simple concept for this post. These are my favorite videos - that I simply cannot stop watching - at this point in time.

First up, I have 3 from BRITANICK, who for all intents and purposes appear to be this year's answer to DERRICK COMEDY. However, with Donald Glover's rise to fame (perhaps stardom, someday soon) the team at DERRICK have been a little lax in new content. They did deliver a feature film, after all. So I'm glad that Brian and Nick at BRITANICK (see what they did there?) are picking up the slack.

This is the one they're most famous for:

Academy Award Winning Movie Trailer (2010, dir. Brian McElhaney)

This is the one they almost got kicked out of film school for making:

Eagles Are Turning People Into Horses (2008, dir. Brian McElhaney)

And this is their latest (also; sneaky inclusion of Danny Pudi from NBC's COMMUNITY ties this whole thread back in. For you see Donald Glover is on said television program. Coincidence or ... cosmic convergence?):

A Monologue For Three (2011, dir. Brian McElhaney)

Some wonderful music for you:

Shatner of the Mount by Fall On Your Sword

Smooth Criminal by Sulic Hauser

Winning - A Song By Charlie Sheen by Songify This

If It Bleeds, We Can Kill It by Jonandal

And some not-so-wonderful:

Friday by Rebecca Black

Forgotten gem:

Waiters Who Are Nauseated By Food (1996, dir. unknown)

And a show of integrity:

Zach Wahls Speaks About Family from the Iowa House Democrats

Phew; I hope you enjoyed the above. I know I certainly did, and will, again and again and again. How good is braces girl in 'Friday'?

Let's have a toast to the douchebags.

2011-03-17T17:44:00.000-07:00

Real quick one here for you today.

Some of you may know that SXSW have a design section of their competition, and award prizes for innovative feature and short title design. This year, they played a small intro clip giving us the brief history of title design.

A Brief History of Title Design 2011, dir. Ian Albinson on Vimeo.

I once remarked that I thought the strength of good title design was when it forced your attention towards it; in a sense, making you acknowledge the hard work of the people involved in making the film you're watching. The response I got was something along the lines of "Yeah - but white text on a black background LITERALLY gives you nothing else to look at in the frame." Still, I think it is a wonderful chance to set tone - even tell back story or provide important information.

The final clip you see in A BRIEF HISTORY OF TITLE DESIGN is a section from the opening titles of ENTER THE VOID, which are particularly striking. They perfectly captures the feeling of a drugged out club night, which sets you up for the experience of the feature film to follow. View the ENTER THE VOID titles below (but be warned, it's an assault on the senses).

Enter the Void (2010, dir. Gasper Noe)

It's certainly about as far away from safe title design as you can get - but it's instantly iconic. Hoping to see more of this kind of thing somewhere along the way. Except if it is done in the sense of the following example, which appears to be a blatant copy of the original (but kind of just ... weaker. I don't know if the team behind this film clip credit the team at BUF at any stage, but in the recycling process, the energy feels totally drained). You make up your own mind.

All Of The Lights (2011, dir. Hype Williams)

The wiki page for the video describes it as having 'visual references' to the above opening credits for ENTER THE VOID.

When everybody's super ... then nobody will be.

2011-03-16T19:08:00.000-07:00

Just a short little post to get me back in the bloggage (that's a word) frame of mind.

A new feature from Transmission Films has received a limited release in Australia today (the same Transmission Films behind Best Picture Winner THE KING'S SPEECH. Yeah, limit that release, Australia). The title of this newest cinematic outing is GRIFF THE INVISIBLE.

Directed by Leon Ford (actor you've seen in THE PACIFIC and BENEATH HILL 60) it appears to tell the tale of mild mannered cubicle jockey Griff, a socially awkward loner who spends his nights fighting crime as an invisible superhero. Although ... as I've only seen the trailer I can't be 100% certain that this synopsis is accurate. Anyway, he meets an attractive young woman who appears to have just as much trouble with social interaction as he.

Several meet-cutes and misunderstandings later, I presume, this manic-pixie-dream-girl allows Griff the courage to come out of his shell. And from what I hear the romance has been handled with genuine heart and sweetness. Here's the trailer:

Griff the Invisible (2011, dir. Leon Ford)

Looks pretty good huh? The song at the end (Ben Cocks - So Cold)? That shit is just fantastic. Yeah, okay, there's that "You get in my bubble" line. Not going to make a song and dance about it. But all in all I'd watch this film.

That is, I'd watch this film if I didn't think that I had seen it done, several times already, with varying degrees of success, and that perhaps I was bound to see it done a few more times before the year is through. Observe the following trailers:

Super (2011, dir. James Gunn)

Defendor (2010, dir. Peter Stebbings)

Kick Ass (2010, dir. Matthew Vaughn)

Paper Man (2009, dir. Kieran Mulroney, Michele Mulroney)

I guess there isn't a whole hell of a lot of a point that I'm trying to make here except to say that I think that these films; most of them touted as wildly original; really all cover the exact same thematic and narrative ground. How many more times do we need this particular incarnation of 'small guy fights for truth in a big system' played out? It's tired, and no one is doing anything particularly new or exciting with it.

In fact, the last time it was done really well was back in 2006.

Special (2006, dir. Hal Haberman, Jeremy Passmore)

In the end, you don't need a large budget, just a good solid idea. And the warm heart at the center of SPECIAL doesn't beat to the tune of standard themes 'can one man change the world' or 'is the world worth fighting for'. These are important questions, yes, but they're kind of easy questions to answer. The only reason they would need to be asked at all is if you have a character who inhabits a world so filled with caricatured villains and antagonisms that hope seems like a genuinely foreign concept.

No; instead SPECIAL is bold and clear in it's statement. It declares "Are you special? No. Of course not. You're not special. You're just like everybody else. BUT - that doesn't give anyone the right to walk all over you. Stand up for THAT."

Take a look at the above, please feel free to retort on behalf of Woody Harrelson and team. I'd love for you to let me know if you think there are any other titles that fit this very specific sub-genre.

Until next time.

Avatarded

2010-01-19T18:11:00.000-08:00

So I saw it again. The count is up to 2 now. If I'm being perfectly honest, I have to admit: I enjoyed it more the second time around. I remember reading an article in Empire magazine about the initial reaction to the first trailer - the huge backlash and hatred heaped upon Cameron's supposed 'masterpiece of modern cinema', and his response (which was something like) 'It was necessary to recalibrate the audience's expectations to the film. People have built it up to an unrealistic standard and it was important that they were only expecting the movie I was making'. Which is a great defense for a bad movie. But even in the viewing of the film, I think it's a fairly accurate statement. The first time I saw Avatar I was quite disappointed with everything about it (not least, the spin suggesting that there was JUST NO WAY that this film could have been done before current technology. Pretty sure I've seen some far out shit using puppets. Or CG. Or - fuck it - traditional 2D animation). My second viewing boiled down, quite simply, to this - it was much more fun.

what was more fun? The whole ride. I could get behind the characters of Neytiri and Jake Sully as they battle this vastly technologically superior enemy. Granted - the first act has INCREDIBLE pacing issues. It moves so damned slow - it's like, okay, James, I get it, there are a lot of weird creatures and most of them are violent and hungry. We get scene after scene of beautifully rendered, photorealistic, completely made up nature photography - all of which does nothing to push the story forward. Not until Jake is accepted into the tribe - where he becomes a Na'vi 'man', does the story really even take off for me. As a side note - this is the same point in both viewings that I began to sit up and take notice, because everything before that was just not really that engaging to me.

My real problem with the film - and I honestly cannot believe it won a golden globe for best film and best direction - is that I never believe the central relationship; upon which the ENTIRE story rests. Jake Sully (Worthington) is disillusioned with life on Earth. Everyone's all about the money; he's seen combat and had it chew him out - and he's given an opportunity to make some cash taking over for his brother on some super advanced intergalactic mining mission. (It takes six years to get to Pandora. Six years to get back. 12 years in which you can't actually spend any of the money you earn there. They'd want to be paying you in straight, uncut 'unobtainium' for that kind of shit. Also - seriously, unobtainium? Good work, James. Good work.) So when he encounters a primitive culture (and wicked hot Zoe Saldana in giant smurf form) who offer him a theology of nature worship and higher connection to the world and people around him, he goes all Tom Cruise The Last Samurai on the audience's ass and gives up on us money hungry, planet murdering humans. I can completely understand the Na'vi's appeal when presented to someone like Jake Sully.

What I cannot understand is why Zoe Saldana's Neytiri would fall in any way for Jake. All he represents to her is a spiritually closed off, small minded warrior. What was it that appealed to her? We already know there is no shortage of testosterone fuelled Na'vi beefcakes on Pandora. What is it about him? This isn't me being a douche, this is genuinely 'I need to know in order for the remainder of the film to carry any emotional weight for me'. The only instance - the only one - I can think of is when they're first flying their Banshees, and Jake does a little dodgem car action on Neytiri's - this playful attitude begins their courtship. But I need more than that to believe she would turn her back - essentially - on her people and get busy (for life, I might add) with one of the sky people.

** By the way - what the fuck? Do the Na'vi know or not know that he's a human in Na'vi form? They call him 'sky person' - they say his alien smell offends their nose. Yet when he and Sigourney Weaver's grace get pulled out of their bodies in the second act climax, the people are all like 'What the fuck! Demons in Na'vi bodies!' No shit guys. I thought you knew?

Anyway, back on topic. Neytiri falling in love with Jake. I don't buy it. Which means that the purpose of the film as I understand it is hard for me to swallow. The way I read it - us technologically advanced cultures need to quit picking on the little guy, because it's kind of fucking up our planet. I got that. But you've got a jarhead who never really connects with Na'vi society (he never stops being a marine ... he never seems to understand the need for co-dependence and balance. When he takes his banshee, he dominates it, finishing with 'you're mine!' I kind of feel like that's not the point. Am I right?) Maybe that happens and I wasn't privy to it. Maybe he fully understands and accepts the Na'vi way of life (the last symbol of which is his death and re-birth as a full Na'vi). But if this film is as much about the person inside as the person outside, and I am indeed watching a film - that is, a collection of visual and audio representations put together in such a way that a story or meaning can be extrapolated - then it is IMPERATIVE that I actually see Jake's attitude to the world around him changing. I can't think of an instance where it did. Really, I can't, I was watching for it the second time around.

Wicked final battle, by the way. Just spectacular.

Why did Michelle Rodriguez put war paint on her helicopter?

Think about the previously mentioned Last Samurai. There is a scene about half way through when Tom Cruise is learning to fight with wooden swords - playing with some kids. Then the big bully of the village comes down and starts wailing on his ass. Just taking him down. It's raining, it's muddy, it's proper hollywood hardcore shit. But Cruise's character stands back up, each time. He won't get beat down. He won't bow. In short - he shows honour, the very thing that the Samurai respect above all things. And this he has learnt - and this is the portal into his changed mental state. There needed to be a scene like this in Avatar - all I got were scenes of Jake riding animals around, being chased by bigger, more dangerous animals that at some stage before the end of the film one of the characters is going to ride. What has that got to do with - oh .... right .... the name of the film is Avatar. It's about people using a representations of themselves as a shield, like in the form of huge metal robots or creepy mind meld ant-horse things.

My roomate Alastair rebutted my criticism of the end of the film by suggesting I was being too simplistic. He said it shouldn't really be about Jake accepting body and spirit the Na'vi way, because, quite simply in the real world if you were raised in suburbia with all modern convenience and then you went to live with some undeveloped tribe somewhere, no matter how much you tried to fit in you'd always have that alternate way of looking at the world. You'd never be able to see the world or understand the world the way that this tribe does. Which I can't actually fault - maybe this is a slightly more complex issue than I'm giving it credit for. But doesn't that then mean that the point of the film is to suggest that us 'more developed' nations need to effectively 'save' the indigenous populations of the world, even if we can never grasp their life philosphy? Wouldn't it be a better message and ending to suggest that by working together we can save one another? (The humans get sent back to their dying world. Suck shit humans). Also - should a film which has some of the most one dimensional characters really be given the benefit of the doubt on anything 'complex' storywise?

One last little point I wanted to make, and this is in relation to the stories I've been hearing about people coming down with depression after leaving the theatre because they can't travel to Pandora. What the fuck, people? We live in a vastly more beautiful and interesting world than the one the Na'vi live on. Remember those trees that suck themselves into the ground when you touch them? That shit exists here on earth. It's a type of coral. And, as a little side note for you all - the coral reefs are gonna be dead in 15 years or so because the ocean is becoming too acidic, and this is causing the coral to bleach themselves, a by product of which is that they DIE. When than happens, the ocean water that the world's coral reefs are holding back will spill in towards the coastlines and entire sections of the map are gonna be wiped out. 15 years. And the people are getting depressed about not living on Pandora? How about you apply some of that compassion and longing and actually help save the planet that we're on now! There are species in the ocean whose defence mechanism is to TURN THEMSELVES INSIDE OUT. James Cameron NEVER came up with anything that fucking cool. That shit is real. Look it up.

Anyway ... sorry for the soap boxing. The movie was not bad. It didn't deserve a golden globe. I'll be fucking pissed off if it wins any Oscars that aren't for technical prowess (and don't get me started on the score). Did people forget that Inglourious Basterds was released this year?

VALKYRIE and the presumed Nazi threat.

2009-10-01T22:03:00.000-07:00

Show, don’t tell.

My friend Daniel Hall writes a blog about ... well, writing. At least - his experiences as he steadily soldiers down the road towards becoming 'a writer'. I've given it some thought, and enjoy the idea of this being a forum through which I can first and foremost present my ideas (malformed and brief though they may be), and secondly that my opinions may spark some debate amongst my peers.

And so we begin ...

** SPOILER ALERT **

I've just taken 'Valkyrie' (2008, Bryan Singer) out of my DVD player. I've returned it to its case and had a brief discussion with my housemates about relatives we know who had some first hand experience of the holocaust. I brought up the movie 'Downfall' and the importance of presenting Hitler as a human - as opposed to a monster - so that we may not delude ourselves into believing such evil to be a freak occurrence but indeed a very real and very relevant threat hiding in the darkest recesses of all of our souls.

But 'Valkyrie' didn't warn me of that. In fact, it has not left me with much of a reaction, emotional or otherwise, other than the awareness of missed potential for dramatic conflict. The (true) story, if you’ve not heard anything about it and will honestly be surprised to a see Tom Cruise go pirate, revolves around an intricate plot headed by one Colonel Stauffenberg during the final days of World War II to assassinate Adolf Hitler and reclaim Germany for its people.

Intrigue, suspense – these things should have been flowing forth from my television set like a busted dam when you have a set up like that. And there are plenty of times when characters say to one another, ‘you know what will happen if we fail!’ ‘You know what they’ll do when they catch us!’ And I guess to a degree, I as an audience member who has looked at the Second World War with an objective eye do know what the Nazis are likely to do should they catch a traitor. The problem is – I already know how this thing is gonna end. I’m watching the movie, and I’m pretty sure at some stage I’m gonna get to see what the Nazis do to traitors.

By allowing me to concoct all manner of horrific torture to be within my mind – then deflating the balloon of suspense by simply having the main characters shot at the end of the film (Stauffenberg’s wife gets away scot-free, to live well into the modern era and die in 2006) the film has set itself up for failure. The writer and director make the assumption that we’ve all seen and heard about all the horrible things the Nazis did, so we can just imagine what will happen to our heroes – doomed to fail as they are.

But one of the most basic of filmic ideas is, whilst still entirely relevant, totally neglected to the detriment of the tone of the film. They tell us of the danger, rather than showing us what may happen to a traitor at the hands of the Fuhrer (we are informed this is the last of 15 failed assassination attempts – therefore there were 14 chances to explore the consequences of failure). And so there never really is any suspense, just a vague … it’ll-be-bad-if-things-don’t-go-right vibe.

This may have worked; until we reach the ending we know is coming and we see those involved in the secret plot hung or shot. Which is ultimately a massive let down – not nearly the devious lengths I understood the Nazis would go to should they catch someone trying to pop a cap in Hitler. I guess it comes down to this simple truth – to me, there is so much worse than death. Humiliation, degradation – these are the things that I fear. The threat to loved ones – a threat easily exploitable by the film’s writers but for their desire to keep it historically accurate – is deeply frightening and entirely accessible to audience members. (I’ve heard no such restraint has been exercised in Tarantino’s ‘Inglourious Basterds’. Good move.)

Darkness within a story seems to come from pushing your characters to the very limits of their tolerance, and that emotional resonance comes from soul crushing submission, not a quick bullet to the head or heart. A movie like ‘The Wrestler’ understands this – and by utilizing it, the central characters journey and ultimate sacrifice is infused with meaning and emotion. Unfortunately Valkyrie relies on a presumed threat, and fails to deliver on that threat, which means that in the end, the character’s sacrifices really are meaningless.

Is it enough for the world to know you fought for your convictions, even though the only thing at stake was your own life?

a REAL american hero

2009-09-07T20:17:00.000-07:00

So I saw GI: Joe, against my better judgement. In my defense, a friend of mine wanted to see it, and I decided to oblige his interest. He was a fan during his childhood.

That whole disclaimer made me sound even more pathetic.

Anyway, there is only one scene that I need to describe to you in order for you to gain an understanding of just how poorly made I consider this film to be. It goes like this.

Shortly after Joseph Gordon Levitt's military dork appears to have been killed by friendly fire, his sister; Sienna Miller, is attending his funeral. The procession stands around an open grave as a casket adorned with beautiful floral arrangements and an American flag is lowered in. All dressed in black, their feelings of grief are reflected in the dark grey clouds which have amassed overhead, and the rain which now beats steadily down upon the entire scene.

Channing Tatum's 'Duke' arrives on his motorcycle and stops, engine running, at a distance great enough that the funeral attendees are unaware of his presence. You see - he is so wracked with guilt after failing to protect Levitt's character, having broken his promise to do so to Miller's character, that he simply cannot bare to approach and confront her. Steve Sommers doesn't want us to forget; underneath that rock solid exterior beats a heart of gold.

So he sits on his hog, the rain matting his hair down and large beads pouring across his face, soaking his leather jacket and spattering across the tinted lenses of the sunglasses he's also decided to wear in this one scene. After a moment's pained reflection, he kicks the bike back into gear and tears off in a rumbling of motor, screeching of tyre on asphalt.

- Important note: at no other point in the movie does 'Duke' wear a leather jacket, sunglasses, or ride a motorcycle. This is the one and only scene in which he does these things.

I believe that's all that really needs to be said about it. If you want a serious, critical review of the film I'm sure there are a number all over the net, but this film simply doesn't deserve it. I'll end on one final observation - this is the first time I have ever heard of a film's parody existing BEFORE the subject of the parody had been conceived, much lest written, produced and released. Go and hire Team America: World Police instead. You'll have a lot more fun, trust me.

Thrills, Chills and Lucky Pills

2009-07-19T22:10:00.000-07:00

All set-up, no pay-off in Harry Potter 6.

Whilst easily the most visually impressive of the Harry Potter adaptations to date, The Half Blood Prince as a film falls flat on it's face, suffering severely from the writer's attempts to translate such a huge chunk of text into even a moderately enjoyable motion picture. Aside from the masses of character development and subplots that have been culled in favor of larger action set pieces and clunky, faux-awkward relationship moments, its biggest problem is the cardinal sin of holiday filmmaking: nothing that happens in the movie carries any weight within the story. There simply is no consequence to any of the actions that occur.

Bare in mind that from this point out, I'm going to be dropping a number of spoilers, not just in regards to the film but also to the overriding Harry Potter story, including but not limited to the resolution of the series, and whether or not Severus Snape is actually a giant douchebag.

Let's start at the beginning. A nice, big old action setpiece in which Death Eaters descend from the sky and wreak havoc on real-world London. Certainly this is one of the most exciting ideas in the book - two worlds violently colliding, the threat of one bleeding through to the next. Except that as the wires snap and the metal warps and buckles on a footbridge across the Thames, it's clearly visible that every single pedestrian makes it safely onto steady ground before the bridge collapses into the water. No casualties. Not even a twisted an ankle, as far as one can tell. Good work Death Eaters - so far, you've failed epically to live up to your name.

But what can we expect from the British government in response to this incident? A bridge mysteriously albiet completely harmlessly collapses into the river and there is no follow up? Are you sure? Oh ... right, the newspaper says the death toll rises ... except I'm certain I didn't see a single person on the bridge. Not one. And as Harry drops his newspaper to sleaze onto the girl at the subway cafe, that plot point: the great danger facing the real or 'muggle' world, is laid to rest.

Not long afterwards, Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) is fretting about his abilities as Gryffindor goal keeper. We as an audience are led to believe that Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) has magically enhanced his abilities - and the two set out to win the match. Only after their triumph on the pitch do we learn that Harry did NOT in fact tamper with Ron's abilities, but simply made him BELIEVE that he had, so as to bolster Ron's confidence and make him see that he had it within himself to succeed all along. Except for the fact that this piece of information is revealed to Hermione (Emma Watson) and not Ron. Surely Ron needs to know that it was he that won, and not the magic? Otherwise, his nerves will CERTAINLY get the better of him before the follow up game - and he will be unlikely to believe at that juncture should his friends choose to tell him of their ruse. No matter - that's the last time Quidditch bares ANY relevance on the story. So it doesn't really matter whether Ron learns that he is capable of acheiving things on his own or not. (Really, he doesn't seem to require this knowledge AT ALL - at the very least, not in this movie. Mostly because he doesn't do anything for the rest of the film except to provide a way for Harry to get into the chat to Slughorn).

What about the scene where the Death Eaters attack the Weasley homestead to lure Harry out in the open (even though, surely, Voldemort would not have sent them to kill Harry, as he is one of the seven Horcuxes and therefor part of Voldemort himself, and therefore off limits murder-wise) and then burn down the house? Well, in the very next seen we see Ron horsing around with one of the many nameless sub-charaters that flitter in and out of the story willy-nilly. No angst over the uncertainty of the times? The fact that his entire family is now homeless? What about the desire to find out WHY the Death Eaters attacked? No follow up at all? Nope ... got to move onto the next set piece, the next plot point, before the 2 1/2 hours is up.

And so it is that we find Harry duelling with Draco Malfoy in the bathroom.

Not in that way.

Anyway, so they're trashing this bathroom. There's shattered porcelain and busted pipes spewing water all around. That alone, surely, would be grounds enough to suspend/expel either boy from the school. But then Harry follows it up by using an unknown spell - that slices and dices the young mister Malfoy and leaves him close to death, bleeding on the floor. Miraculously Snape shows up just in time to set things right. But surely mortally wounding another student would warrant SOME punishment. Not even a rap on the knuckles? Are you sure? Wait, let me get this straight. The teachers at Hogwarts are so fucking lax in their discipline that you can literally trash a school bathroom, then fuck up a fellow student almost beyond repair ... and there's no follow up? There is only a scene in which Harry, feeling sorry for himself, is told to get rid of the book which gave him the spell? Am I supposed to empathise with Harry, that little shit, who keeps dodging all these bullets even though he's acting like a total idiot?

There is a line in the book which goes something like 'Have you forgotten what happened the last time we trusted the writing in a book whose origins we were unsure of'. (See the evil diary containing the soul of villain Lord Voldemort in 'The Chamber of Secrets'). In the book, this was the quickest way to get across the idea that Harry SHOULD turn the book in, but is seduced by the fact that he is acing his classes whilst using the knowledge of 'The Half Blood Prince.' No where in the film does anyone make the same connection, and as a result the clear danger involved is almost totally lost, until Harry uses the mystery spell. But again, there is no consequence beyond the event itself. So, whatever I guess.

There's the scene where Dumbledore drinks poison, and afterwards is totally capable of using some wicked powerful magic. There's the promise that we'll find out what happened to Dumbledore's hand (A thrilling tale, he assures us) but we never do. Time and time again Steve Kloves tries to fit everything from the book into the movie, resulting in a bunch of seperate elements that entirely fail to make up a cohesive, coherent story. (Let's not even get into sexist portrayal of every female character in the movie). Perhaps the lack of consequence is most succintly exemplified at the very end of the film as Kloves rips off The Empire Strikes Back's final moments. Hermoine tells Harry that they will journey with him to destroy Voldemort.

"You need us Harry."

Fine. A truthful if basic statement. But it's missing its other half.

"And we need you, Harry."

Without the answer, all the questions become meaningless. Without the payoff, the set ups are just a waste of celluloid. Without reward, the characters actions, their trials and tribulations, are all rendered entirely meaningless. And it is with that thought that The Half Blood Prince ends. The entire story was for nothing. Like Kloves is laughing at you in your seat for having spent 15 bucks and 2 1/2 hours only to learn that they're stalling until they have finished making the last two films.

So let me leave you with this. At the end of the film, when held at wand-point by Draco Malfoy, Dumbledore pleads for the boy's soul. "I've seen another boy make all the wrong choices. Let me help you," he implores. Ringing so false it made me want to throw up, I spent but a second remembering that the film I have watched took place over the course of an ENTIRE YEAR in which Dumbledore KNEW that Draco was planning to kill him, and did ... not a single fucking thing to reach out to the child, to try and save him while there was still time. Those of you who've read the novels know of course that it was all part of the plot Dumbledore was putting in place so that Harry could ultimately defeat Voldemort. Except that, in that case, both Harry and Draco were total PAWNS in a game that Dumbledore was playing with their lives and souls at stake. In the wake of a war that our country was involved in in which young men were sent to fight for the interests of those holding all the cards, it makes me wonder about the meaning behind the film and book series. Are they telling me that the end justifies the means? Because I don't think I can stand by that. I really don't.

The Harry Potter saga ends up being a story about two wizards who understand a lot more than those around them - and by keeping them in the dark they are able to manipulate their peers in order to win a battle. A battle which simply comes down to 'I have the right to exist and you don't'. And in this story it is perfectly acceptable to sacrifice a young man's soul to destroy your opponent - even if you're one of the good guys - because, I don't know, his father was evil or he was on the path to being a little thug. No one made an honest effort to try and save the kid.

When Harry comes upon Malfoy, who is obviously struggling to cope with the pressure of the task at hand: kill your headmaster, or face death or worse at the hands of the most evil being in your universe, Harry doesn't ask him why a 16 year old boy would be weeping alone in a bathroom. Or why he has just torn off his stifling jumper, struggling to breathe, staring into his own eyes in the actor's best attempt at a 'what the fuck do I do?' moment. Instead, Harry forces him into a fight which almost kills him, and gets away scot free. In the end, I don't know which side of this fight I feel more sympathetic towards. The shoddy storytelling has unitentionally muddied the classic good vs evil formula - and now the bad guys are erring on the lighter side of gray, and the good guys are plunging headfirst into total darkness. To potential audience members and filmmakers alike I say good luck finding the light at the end of the tunnel.

UBER-ANNOYING ... don't you DARE close your eyes!

2009-06-22T19:32:00.000-07:00

Hollywood’s digital rape of your childhood

Whilst hung-over last weekend (I was celebrating my 25th birthday by attempting to wipe my mind clean of the last quarter century using a veritable cocktail of fun-at-the-time substances) I went out and purchased some DVDs using birthday monies. I'd recently watched 'The Hangover' - thematically relevant, but also the macguffin for this post – a film which made me want to revisit Todd Phillip's earlier work (except for Starsky and Hutch and most of the other stuff he's done). Really, I just wanted to watch ‘Old School’. It was a lot of fun. Incidentally, it also makes me think that Will Ferrel might work best as a supporting character, just like Jack Black, but that's not the diatribe I am slowly meandering towards. Maybe next time.

During the same transaction, I purchased two other movies. The first of the two: Disney's Aladdin. Mostly because I couldn't stop laughing when I was reminded of the scene in which Jasmine is singing 'A Whole New World' and Aladdin says, in a subversive yet quite aggressive manner, “don't you DARE close your eyes!” What a psycho. Someone should have told Robin Williams to reel it back in, and the screenwriters easily could have used another ten minutes to flesh out all of the different relationships in the film (Genie and Aladdin as friends, Aladdin and Jasmine as lovers), but generally it was good fun to watch. I also bought the single disc, special edition of E.T.: The Extraterrestrial.

This brings me to the beginning of my rant.

Let me illustrate a scene from E.T. for you as best I can. The scene in question occurs at the beginning of the film. Alien botanists, fearing discovery and capture by anonymous men in land rovers, flee through a vast redwood forest towards their spaceship, whip the doors closed, and return to outer space. The titular E.T. is left behind - he's out of reception range and doesn't hear the call to return to the mother ship on his heart-o-phone radio receiver. He's also dangerously close to the man with the keys and the flashlight - something we can assume from John Williams' score is quite dangerous. So he flees, and is chased, through the forest. Great POV shots are used as he ploughs through the ground hugging ferns. Amazing puppetry shows him bounding along, faster than he will ever move again in the film, bouncing every now and then above the height of the low shrubbery.

He then crosses - full height in frame, smooth as liquid on screen, across a dirt path and down towards the town below. And I drop my packet of M&Ms, suppressing the urge to hurtle them towards my TV screen. Because it's not the TV's fault that I have been torn out of my excitement and turkey slapped by the intrusion of advanced technology on what is arguably one of the most acclaimed children's films of all time. It is Spielberg and Co.'s fault for deciding that a film which captivated millions of children, that ignited their imagination, needed to be re-jigged with CGI additions - for purposes entirely unknown. That’s why I’m seeing what I’m seeing. People love this film as it always has been - it has some of the most iconic imagery I can think of in terms of modern Hollywood (light up index fingers, kids cycling across the sky backlit by the moon). What made them think that we needed - or wanted - more articulation on E.T.'s face? Particularly when we discover that the quality of puppetry at work was one of the chief reasons that Spielberg didn't want to go FULL CG with the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park. (We have E.T. to thank for being the prototype of a puppet whose eyes could dilate on cue ... another iconic image Spielberg would milk during the T-Rex attack in Jurassic Park.) E.T. is one of the cutest movie puppets of all time … I didn’t want him to become CG.

The use of CGI in updating these old films essentially does two things to ruin the experience for the viewer. Most of the time, the viewer is hoping to revisit a childhood story, or a film they are told is brilliant for both its scope and vision at the time of creation. When we see these CGI tweaks, we're totally torn from the experience of immersing ourselves in a quainter, more fun style of filmmaking. When effects - due to technological limitations - were forced to merely provide a suggestion of the filmmaker’s imagination, as opposed to a photo-realistic depiction of every grain of sand falling through the filmmaker’s mind. We’ve never wanted to see EVERYTHING as it really would be. We wanted to see the idea of what could be, and then move on with the story - because that was always the most important part, not the effects. Watching a film I know was made in the 70s, and then encountering blatant CGI cosmetic surgery tears me from the world of the film and totally diminishes the effect it has on me.

So let's go with that - point one: I don't always need photo realism in my effects to enjoy them. I fuckin' love Ray Harryhausen and his stop motion monsters, and the fact that the technology is now outdated certainly doesn’t make Jason and the Argonauts or Clash of the Titans any less thrilling. (Ten dollars right now that says the new remake of Clash of the Titans is more concerned with making everything look more photorealistic than improving the story and tightening the character drama. Which strikes me as completely idiotic, seeing as how I'm never going to believe in the Pegasus or the Cyclops anyway, no matter how REAL they look, but I can certainly believe in and relate to dramatic tension and empathise with the conflict characters encounter).

Point two: by making CGI adjustments to films like E.T. you're actually going some way to slicing the testicles off the story you're trying to tell. Spielberg has removed the guns from the agent's hands and replaced them with walkie talkies. Not a big issue, right? Except that the point of the story is that the only thing that can save Elliot and E.T. is their friendship and love. They need each other to survive. The image of the characters running around with guns represents the polar opposite of this - the villains' reliance on technology to fix everything. Not even technology - violent technology which is essentially useless under the circumstances. The walkie talkies kind of make this same statement, being that they are a form of technology, but they certainly don't hold the same violent and pointless connotation. One could argue that the sequence in the house, where the doctors try to save E.T. is enough to get this point across, but the guns to walkie talkies alteration was simply not necessary.

No one is guiltier of CGI rape than George Lucas. I'm not going to go into the Star Wars Trilogy Special Edition any more than to say this - yes, you put in a fucking bunch of stupid songs, and a tonne of new alien species. Good work. But you failed to remove the horrible black outline of the blue screen effect used to render the Rancor lifelike. Clearly, instead of using the technology to improve upon flaws presented by the old technology, you’ve chosen purely cosmetic uses for the technology – rendering the problems that do exist clearer than ever for the audience to see.

I will make this point about the DVD of THX 1138: I was reading a book called 'Easy Riders, Raging Bulls' - some of you may have heard of it, some may have even read it - and I was attempting to watch the films discussed as they were brought up, and thus understand the social context into which the film was released. I had hoped this would further my understanding of the films themselves. When I put THX 1138 on, I was quite impressed by its scope and style. Until of course I reached the car chase sequence, or the CGI monsters crawling around on the walls. WTF, George?!? I'm trying to watch a film from the 70s here and you're buggering it up with all these ENHANCEMENTS! To this date, I don't know if I like the film THX 1138 because to this date I have never seen it. I've seen a bastardised version of it; I've kind of been fed the story with the author periodically stopping, saying, “Oh wait, this bit isn't finished yet. This is what happens but don't worry about the details.” Have some faith in your material. Have some confidence in your failures as well as your successes. Things don't need to be perfect. I just want to watch your movie ... why won't you let me do that? Why don't you want me to see your film?

Please Hollywood ... stop going back and tweaking what I once loved and thought was great. Stop remaking stuff that already exists. When the writers strike occurred, we were told as an audience that it would be damaging to the industry because no one would be creating original content. The strike has been resolved but all I'm seeing are remakes, sequels, prequels and re-releases (and ideas stolen from international films). The reason there is no original content is because there are no original writers left. There isn't anyone who's making an effort to develop clever, original ideas. I hope the whole machine collapses under the weight of its insecurities and fears.

I’ve lost the ability to articulate my point well. Now I'm just angry and sore that filmmakers have to revisit their old works at all. I'm leaving.

The Truth Is Just A Plain Blog

2009-06-09T18:03:00.000-07:00

Todd Hayne's 'I'm Not There'

It's unfortunate Todd Haynes named his 'Bob Dylan' biopic 'I'm Not There' ... because realistically when I'm struggling to stay involved in the pursuits of 6 underdeveloped characters, and I'm seriously contemplating turning the movie off and walking out of the room ... well, then I can't be blamed for expending some of my brain power creating lazy puns upon the title. Much like my friends and I did for that Johnny Depp film 'Blow'. (I think the best one that we came up with was; at the end, when he has been busted for all his drug smuggling and put in prison, someone piped up with 'he blew it!' Cue: half groan, half laugh.)

The idea of the film is, presumably, to examine the different personas one individual might have when subjected to scrutiny by the masses. Some people get to know them as such-and-such character type, some see them as this, some see them as that. Its biggest problem occured in the execution, in that the constant shift between the characters meant that we never really had any time to connect with any one of them. For instance, by the time we discover where our little boy Dylan, the 'faker Dylan' - Woody Guthrie (Marcus Carl Franklin) - is heading, and there is a long slow pull back from the REAL dying Woody Guthrie lying in a hospital bed, we realize that we have spent so much of our attention span trying to figure out what the hell is going on and how this relates to Dylan at all that the emotion that I'm certain Todd Haynes figured would be there (sad Dylan ballad, dude dying in bed, little boy on the verge of tears playing guitar in the corner) simply is not.

Time for a disclaimer, I think. I don't actually know much about Bob Dylan save for the fact that I own (read: have downloaded) his John Wesley Harding album (the one with 'All Along The Watchtower' on it - and only then because it featured so prominently in seasons 3 and 4 of Battlestar Galactica) and his greatest hits collection entitled Dylan (the single disc, not the double dics. I'm not in love with the guy, for christ's sake). It is possible that had I known more about him from the outset I might have enjoyed (or at least been familiar with) the different personas Todd Haynes had constructed to illustrate him. The movie star (Ledger), the sellout (Blanchett). I didn't even make it to the end, so I have absolutely no idea what the hell Ben Whishaw's Dylan was all the fuck about. He was being questioned about something ... but then just spoke in that gibberish, smart ass rhyme that the real Bob Dylan speaks in 'Don't Look Back'.

Some more beef for y'all to chew on - I get that Dylan had a silly accent, but is that really all it takes to play him? Everyone goes really wild over Cate Blanchett's performance in this film (I'm fairly certain the jacket cover says something along the lines of 'Blanchett makes you believe she is him') but it just felt to me like Cate Blanchett in a wig, trying to speak like Bob Dylan. I will admit that the easiest to watch was Heath Ledger, but I can't figure out if that's because I was compelled to pay more attention to him, being that he has since died, or whether it was because he wasn't putting the impersonation sauce on so thickly. There were moments (when he is having an argument about men and women experiencing pain differently, and getting angry over a photographer who won't leave him alone) where you're able to forget the total displacement and disconnectedness of the whole scenario and start to want to follow this storyline through. Except they won't - it'll cut to another time, or to black and white, or to Christian Bale because he suddenly piped up and said "Wait a minute guys! Aren't I in this picture too?"

Everyone looks to Ledger, who's sitting having his toenails manicured, talking on his cell phone, puffing on a massive, phallic cigar. Puff. Puff. Puts his hand over the receiver. "Fuck, alright. Give Batman some lines."

Bale falls to his knees, "Thank you Mr. Ledger!!"

Ledger glares at him.

Gulp. Bale backpeddles, "I mean ... the Joker."

"Don't you forget it."

Bale backs away as somewhere a DOP redresses a light in the scene. He's too humbled to rant on how distracting it is ... but there will be another time, somewhere down the road.

**hanging head in shame** Lazy, lazy comedy.

So ... writing this blog, I guess I've come to understand at least a little more about the whole film. As I said in my opening, it's a little bit about how fame can paint you as a million different things. But it also strikes me that all the Dylans in this film are accused of being sellouts, are accused of being something that they are not, simply because they are EXPECTED to be something by their fans, the newspapers, whatever. The kids at the show saying 'we like your old stuff better than your new stuff.' Oh shit ... am I turning around on this one? Have I come full circle? Do I now understand that when he says 'I'm Not There' it's because the person the world expects Dylan to be (protestor, activist, the man leading the charge to change the world) is not the person Dylan ever was? (Musician, performer). I do know that I understand this - that's too fucking simple a message to have taken 2 and a half hours to get around to, and the film was so profoundly boring and inaccessible that I couldn't stick around long enough to come to that conclusion during the course of my viewing. I had to write a blog to figure it out. And considering Dylan has been, in fact, always an entertainer and by his own admission nothing else to the world ... shouldn't the film at least have been entertaining?

(I just realised I've been writing 'Dylan was' this and that, like the guy is dead or something. The guy is not dead. He's currently playing a tour called 'the never ending tour' which has been going on for at least ten years. So if any of it reads like this, know that it only reads that way because I'm too lazy to go back for a re-write).